Following up to say... the whole idea is so fucking ignorant that it's all shocking. I'm just focusing on the eye damage issue because it's something they readily admit will cause harm, and it's a concrete calculation (even if I think they did it in a bullshit way that ignores a lot of things that actually make it MORE likely to cause eye damage)

Ecological damage has me far more worried, and losing so much of the night sky for some techbro fuckweasel's pipe dream is just devastating.

Any journalists want to write about this? Or anyone know how to figure out who insures Reflect Orbital? Reflect Orbital will cause eye damage to people using telescopes, as astronomers have previously calculated, and they openly admitted it in their reply.

(There is a whole slew of absolutely devastating ecological damage they will also cause, but I'm focusing on this one for now because it's so shocking)

@ai6yr I can’t actually see the study itself, so I have to go by the contents of the Guardian article, and it’s problematic.

I can’t tell if the story is “agentic AI is going more rogue these days” or “more people these days are using agentic AI, which has always been unreliable”; I suspect the latter.

The article anthropomorphizes AI and makes it sound semi-sentient, by using terms like “scheming”, “pretending”, and “evading”, when a simpler and more accurate term is “failing to follow instructions”.

I think articles like these that push the “OMG agentic AI is going rogue!” narrative are part of the problem, because they presume the lie that AI is powerful enough to do these things on their own. The reality is that these were all unreliable systems that have been DEPLOYED BY HUMANS WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER. Journalists would do well to focus on the people who foist these error-prone automata that (quite predictably) cause serious problems down the line.